1. Louie Patrick Rosales February 14, 2013
Effective Communication TTh 1:00 - 2:30 pm
An Evaluation of the Play, “PROGRESS”
Before I dig in to the requirement of this evaluation paper, I would like to vent my
short insights about the message of the play. (Apologies! I can’t help myself). So, let me
start this with how the play drives me to never quit making a stand to every single right,
this nation has bestowed upon me, as a citizen, and as a person. I believe the core
message of the play was the line stated by the Minister of Good Governance, “The
bureaucracy is thick, very thick. So you have to push, push, and push, without being
pushy.” It was paradoxically portrayed by the character of Marina Salcedo, who was
submissive yet determined. A typical character of Filipinos and I think the audience has
come in to a realization about her journey (I hope so!). The play has urged the viewers
to be affirmative especially when confronted with circumstances where the people who
are supposed to give service are succumbed by a sick system.
Second, I would like to give reaction why the Little Boy production chose the
short story written by F. Sionil when the concept is no longer timely, and a lot of plays,
films or, oral discussions had already portrayed the same story line. Young people are
already aware how many Filipinos were aggravated during Marcos regime. They could
have chosen issues that would perfectly strike the anomalies of today. However, I have
convinced myself that the play did not intend to re-condemn the Marcoses or its
governance but they wanted the audience to respond diligently in the event when they
are like toss in the air especially getting service from the government. I am definitely
sure, a silly bureaucracy still exists today and the people looped in the sick system.
Alright, I have to say that the play was effectively communicated. It was effective
that the metamorphosis from a short story to a play was as lovely as a caterpillar
breaking off from her cocoon to spread her wings and fly as a butterfly. Let me start this
with the non verbal cues showed by the actors of the play. Visually, the actors had
precise movement of their eyes. I can see that their postures were well projected and
acted depending on the mood of the scene. Facial expressions were splendid.
Expressions from their faces drew natural sound. The whole body reacted the same
way as their lines. What I like about the execution of characters is: it appears as if they
were naturally moved by the progress of every scene especially the flower-characters
(as I call them). There were seven of them who acted as the pushers of Marina’s
determination to follow-up her promotion which never had progress for five years. This
style of play has truly captivated my interest. It was really creative. The lines they throw
were exactly persuading to make Marina pursue her nitwitted dream. Those lines were
well-delivered that every word could really drive Marina to never let go of what she had
been waiting. Another thing, the play was really worth paying for because of its humor.
Not only by the lines but primarily by how the actors executed the scenes. What made
the humor were the faces drawn from the actors’ faces. Hand and body movements
were just secondary but still, those helped so that the audience would laugh in their
chair. Lastly, what I appreciated about the play is Marina’s (main character) interaction
with the audience. There are some parts of the scene where she had to get near with

2. the audience and asked for a response. I think it was way awkward for a play but it
caught the attention of the rest of the audience especially those who were sitting in front
(because Marina went in the middle part of the audience, and they all turned their heads
to witness how Marina would act). The play was non-verbally creative and the acting
showed by the characters was not forceful but appeared to be gelling to their real
personalities.
The play Progress was naturally convincing. I have to believe it was, because of
the words and language they use. It used the three languages that Cebuanos know and
the accent was very Filipino when speaking the English language. Using such accent
has even made the play humorous yet genuine portrayal. I like how the words or lines
delivered by the flower-characters because it was played in a funny way. I also like the
way the words were pronounced because it reflects how Filipinos before are not so
keen about correct pronunciation such as the word journey, pronounced as jArnee.
Next, the voice used by the characters was well managed. The volume of their voices
was practically softened and amplified to give emphasis on the lines and words they
deliver. To cite one, when one of the flower-characters said, “This is long (low in
volume), very long (loud up)! Furthermore, the songs sung by the flower-characters are
accessory to the play which made the audience to stare on the scene when Marina had
to face the adversities of achieving her dream. However, the emotional content of the
tone of the characters were a bit raw (though I should believe it may be intended that
way) because there were critical scenes when there has to be an outpour of sad and
down feelings. Anyway, like what I appreciated about the play is its humorous content
and it has driven the audience to learn instead of react only. Pausing, phrasing, and
emphasis were just simply eaten by the actors especially by the main character and the
actor who portrayed the Minister of Good Governance.
Ultimately, the play Progress has collaboratively executed its performance in a
manner where audience can understand and respond about it. Both in verbal and non-
verbal language the actors have showed how a worth-watching play should be.